Genuine Human Happiness

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I had my suspicions that you were just being a troll (given some of the nonsense you've been spewing) - this confirms it without a doubt.

For the record, I pasted the text, that ATC says he "never said", from a post he made that appears earlier on this page.

I guess that's what one gets for giving him the benefit of a doubt.

I don't know how you can get such contrasting, dissjointed ,repetive views, post after post. I'm mean let's face it - avalanche isn't the first one you've had a multiple page exchange with, where no one ever seems to answer any questions directly, and where both parties scratch their heads as to why the other guy is acting the way he is. In this case I think avalanche is scratching a bit more earnestly and from the start , whereas you only started recognizing how retarded some of your inanely repetive posts were later in the piece.

just my observation

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I don't know how you can get such contrasting, dissjointed ,repetive views, post after post. I'm mean let's face it - avalanche isn't the first one you've had a multiple page exchange with, where no one ever seems to answer any questions directly, and where both parties scratch their heads as to why the other guy is acting the way he is. In this case I ...[text shortened]... etarded some of your inanely repetive posts were later in the piece.

just my observation

On 20 Mar @ 23:00 GMT, ATC posted the following:

I thought you said that was unfortunate?

Tell me, do you consider yourself a christian?

Then in a later post he claimed that he never said "I thought you said that was unfortunate?"

You can check it out for yourself instead of jumping to conclusions.

From what I can tell, he doesn't want to admit that he did not understand the quoted material I posted and has been acting irrationally ever since.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
On 20 Mar @ 23:00 GMT, ATC posted the following:

I thought you said that was unfortunate?

Tell me, do you consider yourself a christian?

Then in a later post he claimed that he never said "I thought you said that was unfortunate?"

You can check it out for yourself instead of jumping to conclusions.

From what I can tell, he do ...[text shortened]... did not understand the quoted material I posted and has been acting irrationally ever since.

I get your side of it. I'm not saying it's black and white with you and avalanche, I'm just saying your posting style is very black and white and rigid, whereas a poster like avalanche can ask and answer questions in a bit more flexible way.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I get your side of it. I'm not saying it's black and white with you and avalanche, I'm just saying your posting style is very black and white and rigid, whereas a poster like avalanche can ask and answer questions in a bit more flexible way.

Some find it difficult to face the truth. What is 'delusion' but an avoidance of the truth? Do you think that one should allow others to avoid the truth? Or should they be called on that avoidance?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Some find it difficult to face the truth. What is 'delusion' but an avoidance of the truth? Do you think that one should allow others to avoid the truth?

There is no monopoly on "truth" and given the major linguistical barriers we have, where we can only agree on simple words like "dogs or"cats", and even fail at that sometime, you're going to find that living the truth and talking about it are not neccasarily that easy to allign.
So failure for some to "face the truth", begs the question immediately about what the hell you mean when you say "truth". As you know, truth is one of the more popular subjects that comes and goes on this forum. And I reckon it comes up so much is that that word (truth) , is one of the most hottly contested words, as to what it means, here on this forum.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
On 20 Mar @ 23:00 GMT, ATC posted the following:

I thought you said that was unfortunate?

Tell me, do you consider yourself a christian?

Then in a later post he claimed that he never said "I thought you said that was unfortunate?"

You can check it out for yourself instead of jumping to conclusions.

From what I can tell, he do ...[text shortened]... did not understand the quoted material I posted and has been acting irrationally ever since.

It was a "joke" dude. I deliberately ignored the ""s. It does rather subtract from the impact now I've explained that, however.

Are you a christian?

Please indicate where you think I've behaved irrationally. (Please don't say "I've already explained that etc." again).

Originally posted by karoly aczel
There is no monopoly on "truth" and given the major linguistical barriers we have, where we can only agree on simple words like "dogs or"cats", and even fail at that sometime, you're going to find that living the truth and talking about it are not neccasarily that easy to allign.
So failure for some to "face the truth", begs the question immediately ab , is one of the most hottly contested words, as to what it means, here on this forum.

Not sure what your point is here. Do you believe that there aren't ANY concrete truths?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Not sure what your point is here. Do you believe that there aren't ANY concrete truths?

There is our experience of the truth but I may describe it in different language to you, where it may seem we disagree initially, but are actually commenting on different aspects of the same thing.

Why,what do you mean by "truth" ? other than JC and his supposed monopoly on access to G-d ? 🙄

Originally posted by karoly aczel
There is our experience of the truth but I may describe it in different language to you, where it may seem we disagree initially, but are actually commenting on different aspects of the same thing.

Why do you mean by "truth" ? other than JC and his supposed monopoly on access to G-d ? 🙄

I never claimed that Jesus has a "monopoly on access to G-d". That is a truth. That is a concrete truth. You can beg to differ, but it won't change this fact. Even if you disagree, it won't change this fact.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I never claimed that Jesus has a "monopoly on access to G-d". That is a truth. That is a concrete truth. You can beg to differ, but it won't change this fact. Even if you disagree, it won't change this fact.

Ah.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
There is our experience of the truth but I may describe it in different language to you, where it may seem we disagree initially, but are actually commenting on different aspects of the same thing.

Why,what do you mean by "truth" ? other than JC and his supposed monopoly on access to G-d ? 🙄

I now understand where all his hostility was coming from. I'm still struggling to find what it is you like about him though!

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
I now understand where all his hostility was coming from. I'm still struggling to find what it is you like about him though!

ATC continues to 'play the victim'. Instead of admitting his avoidance, he deems others as having 'hostility'. Classic.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
ATC continues to 'play the victim'. Instead of admitting his avoidance, he deems others as having 'hostility'.

Who are you talking to? If you're replying to my post, shouldn't you be talking to me? Are you imagining an audience, hanging on your every word?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Who are you talking to? If you're replying to my post, shouldn't you be talking to me? Are you imagining an audience, hanging on your every word?

ATC continues 'playing the victim' via his ongoing vague insinuations. Classic again.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
ATC continues 'playing the victim' via his ongoing vague insinuations. Classic again.

I've noticed you repeat yourself quite a lot. Is that in case they can't hear you very well at the back?